In the Interest of A.M.
385 S.W.3d 74
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Termination of parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of (D) endangering conditions, (E) endangering conduct with others, or (O) noncompliance with court orders, plus that termination is in the child’s best interest.
- J.M. challenged the best-interest finding on factual-sufficiency grounds after evidence of predicate violations and post-removal conduct was considered.
- Trial court admitted evidence of predicate violations in the best-interest phase because the party did not request limiting instructions, and there was no Rule 274 objection.
- Evidence showed August 2010 neglect and unsafe living conditions; children were removed and placed with relatives; Appellant had prior involvement with law and supervision and later engaged in risky relationships.
- The court applied a prospective remedy for preserving factual-sufficiency review and affirmed the best-interest findings under the Holley framework.
- The trial court’s order terminating parental rights to A.M. and E.M. was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of factual-sufficiency challenge | Appellant (J.M.) argues preservation was required. | Department contends preservation was overlooked but review is allowed in termination cases. | Prospective application; issue preserved for review under the court’s standard. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for best-interest findings | Evidence of predicate violations should not be used for best interest review. | Evidence of past neglect and current conduct supports best interest. | Factually sufficient evidence supported the best-interest findings. |
| Retroactive vs. prospective application of M.S. preservation rule | The M.S. rule should be applied retroactively. | Prospective application warranted due to new precedent and potential inequity. | Decision applied prospectively; reviewed under Elbaor considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (standard for termination must be clear and convincing; Holley factors guide best interest)
- Spangler v. Texas Dept. of Prot. & Reg. Servs., 962 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.App.-Waco 1998) (due-process requirement of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex.2003) (preservation of factual sufficiency in termination appeals; prospective retroactivity analysis)
- In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex.2003) (holding that preservation may be required; discusses retroactivity and due-process considerations)
- In re A.P., 42 S.W.3d 248 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001) (earlier rule permitting review of unpreserved sufficiency challenges; overruled by M.S.)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex.2002) (overruled aspects of earlier preservation approach; governs review)
- Barker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306 (Tex.2006) (requires reviewing sufficiency based on charge and jury findings)
- C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex.2002) (best interest factors; evidence may be probative of both predicate and best-interest)